Walt Sherrill
Member
ATLDave said:Finally, I would reiterate that instances (such as some unspecified, unquantified percentage of Somalis... although they are a bad example, I explained above) not showing any incapacitation from tissue displacement is not proof that the phenomenon is non-existent... just proof that it does not always manifest. Just as not every punch in the stomach knocks the wind out of someone. That doesn't mean that gut-punches don't stop a lot of fights.
I added the underlining above. What does that statement mean? Were some Somalis incapacitated but their incapacitation just wasn't visible, that there was not sufficient tissue displaced, or was some other undefined process at play? Your reasoning seems to be an example of what is called:Begging the question which is sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point).
Begging the Question is considered a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. If the premise is questionable, then the argument is bad.
You believe that tissue displacement is a very powerful component of all gunshot wounds, and because of that belief, you assume tissue displacement (and is side-effects) must always be present if the person is hit in an appropriate area. You've used your conclusion as your assumption. I would argue, however, that not showing signs of incapacitation due to tissue displacement is proof of only one thing: the lack of incapacitation due to tissue displacement, and nothing more. You can't correctly or logically take it farther than that.
Saying the lack of incapacitation is proof that the related phenomenon exists but doesn't always manifest itself is a logical error -- or a statement of belief.
Last edited: